Healing a fractured State: Why words matter in Manipur
|
Dr Raj Singh
Introduction
Manipur is home to a rich tapestry of ethnic communities–including the Meiteis (the dominant valley people), various Kuki- Zo tribes, Naga tribes, Meitei Pangals (Manipuri Muslims), and others. Despite centuries of coexis- tence, relations among these groups have been strained by periodic bouts of ethnic violence and mutual distrust. In recent times, particularly during the unrest of 2023-24, public discourse and social media have seen a proliferation of ethnic slurs and derogatory stereotypes that exacerbate divisions. Words wield great power : what begins with dehumanizing words can end in bloodshed. This is exactly what is happening in Manipur. Ethnic slurs pose a great threat to ethnic harmony in Manipur.
Ethnic Slurs and Social Divisions in Manipur
Every multi-ethnic society develops its share of ethnophaulic derogatory nicknames or slurs for out-groups – and Manipur is no exception. These slurs, often casually bandied in daily conversation, carry painful histories and reinforce social hierarchies. In Manipuri (Meiteilon) lexicon, hill-dwelling tribes (like Kuki and Naga communities) have been pejoratively labeled “hao,” “hao-thu,” “hao-macha,” and “minai” by some from the majority Meitei community.
These terms imply that hill people are “unclean,” “uncivilised,” even akin to slaves – a stark denigration of their equal human dignity. Such language harkens back to old prejudices: hao roughly translates to “uncultured tribesman” in local parlance, and minai has connotations of servitude. Similarly, Meiteis refer to mainland Indians (outsiders) as “Mayang,” a term that has taken on derogatory overtones as “alien” or “other.” In turn, some hill communities have their own derogatory names for valley people; for instance, Thadou-Kuki slang refers to a Meitei as “Milong,” meaning a people who were historically immigrants to the hills (though overt ethnic slurs against Meiteis are less formally documented). The Naga term “Kacha Naga” (literally “raw Naga”) was historically used by others to belittle certain Naga sub-tribes–a reminder that even within broader ethnic categories, pejoratives exist to mark “inferior” subsets. Pangals (Manipuri Muslims) too face a lexicon of abuse. Stereotyped by some Meiteis as troublemakers or criminals, many racist terms are used to describe the Pangal community, reflecting a perception of Pangals as “anti-social” or untrustworthy. Although those specific epithets are often left unwritten in polite media, they persist in street- level jargon and online forums.
These slurs are not harmless banter–they play a pernicious role in reinforcing social divisions.
Each derogatory term creates a mental “us vs. them” boundary.
The normalization of these pejoratives in everyday language cements negative stereotypes: hill communities are painted as uncivilized, while some hill youth see Meiteis as arrogant oppressors. Over time, such rhetoric hardens communal identities and complicates constructive dialogue. What might start as a schoolyard taunt or marketplace insult can evolve into entrenched bias, justifying discriminatory treatment and even violence against the targeted group.
Psychological and Social Fallout
Social science has long established that repeated exposure to hate speech leads to real harm: anxiety, low self-esteem, and inter- generational trauma. Young tribal students in Manipur often internalize slurs about primitiveness or inferiority. Women from hill communities report self- stereotyping and low confidence due to persistent derogatory labelling.
Beyond the individual, slurs damage social cohesion. They normalize discri- mination and lower moral barriers to mistreatment. Manipur’s history has already shown where this can lead—from the 1993 massacre of Meitei Pangals to the recent 2023 clashes where social media amplified hate and rumors on both sides. Platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook became echo chambers of ethnic labelling, turning virtual slurs into real flames.
India’s Legal Framework on Hate Speech
India’s Constitution protects free speech but allows restrictions for public order and decency. Several existing laws can be applied to slurs and hate speech : IPC Section 153A penalizes any speech that promotes enmity between groups based on religion, race, language, or region.
1) Section 505 (2) punishes incitement that could provoke community-on-community violence.
2) Section 295A covers insults aimed at religious sentiments, relevant when ethnic and religious identities overlap (as with Pangals).
Additionally, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act criminalizes insults aimed at Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Many Naga and Kuki tribes fall under this category. In fact, calling someone from the North East a racial slur like “Chinki” can lead to jail under this Act.
Importantly, the Delhi High Court has ruled that even social media posts count as “public view” under the SC/ST Act, opening the door for online hate speech prosecutions.
Under the Information Technology Act, Section 69A allows the Government to block online content that threatens public order—a tool used frequently during Manipur’s internet shutdowns in 2023.
While no Indian law specifically bans “ethnic slurs,” the legal tools exist. What is missing is consistent enforcement and legislation specific to Manipur.
Lessons from Around the World
Around the world, multi-ethnic and pluralistic societies have grappled with how to curb hate speech without unduly infringing free expression. A comparative look at legal approaches –from stringent criminali-zation to softer campus codes–provides valuable lessons for Manipur.
Germany : The Nazis calling Jews as Untermenschen (sub-humans) and vermin led to the Holocaust. In the shadow of the Holocaust, Germany has developed some of the world’s strictest hate speech laws. The German Criminal Code’s Section 130 (Volksverhetzung) makes it a serious offense to incite hatred against any racial, religious, or ethnic group, or even to insult them in a manner that assaults human dignity. Germany crimi-nalizes slurs even on social media.
The result is a public sphere that, by law, is cleansed of open racial/ethnic slurs – contributing to an environment where overt hate is socially taboo.
Rwanda : No country understands the deadly consequences of unchecked hate speech better than Rwanda. The 1994 genocide, which killed an estimated 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu, was preceded and fomented by relentless hate propaganda – Hutus calling Tutsis Inyenzi (meaning cockroaches). In response, post-genocide Rwanda enacted strong laws against “genocide ideology” and sectarian hate speech. Indeed, Rwandan society has seen an extraordinary transformation : words like “Tutsi” or “Hutu” are rarely spoken in public discourse at all now, let alone in a negative sense, due to a top-down imposition of “One Rwanda” identity. Rwandans today have eliminated overt ethnic slurs from public life.
Canada: Even in a country deeply committed to civil liberties, Section 319 (2) of its Criminal Code recognizes that ridiculing or abusing someone on account of their race or origin is harmful enough to warrant criminal sanction. Alongside criminal law, Canada also for many years employed Human Rights Tribunal Codes that treated hate speech (especially in media or online) as a civil rights violation, though a federal provision on internet hate speech was repealed in 2013 due to free speech concerns. Slurs like Negro (for Black people), Red Indian (for North American Natives), Paki (for immigrants of Pakistani origin) and Eskimos (for the Inuits) have been removed from overt use in the society.
South Africa: A country that emerged from institutionalized racism (Apartheid) has uniquely strong social norms and laws against racial slurs. In South Africa, the word “kaffir”–a vile slur used by some whites for Black Africans is criminalised by the Equality Law 2000. The South African approach combines legal punishment with a strong cultural consensus that certain epithets are beyond the pale. The result is that open use of racial slurs is exceedingly rare in mainstream South African society today; transgressors face not only legal action but public censure and loss of employment.
United States : The United States presents a unique case of Constitutionally allowing ethnic slurs and hate speech while struggling to fight the pernicious effects of these in fragmented efforts like University Campus Codes to prohibit derogatory or pejorative remarks aimed at historically disadvantaged groups (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) on campus. The University of Wisconsin produced its Campus Codes in 1980 to be followed by other universities afterwards. The slur Kike used against the Jewish people is observably forbidden.
In summary, international models range from criminalizing hate speech (Germany, Rwanda, South Africa), to mixed civil-criminal approaches (Canada), to institutional policies within a free-speech framework (US campuses). A thread common to all is the understanding that hate speech–especially ethnic slurs – is not a trivial matter of hurt feelings but a substantive social harm that can unravel the fabric of a multiethnic society. The choices made reflect different balances of values, but each offers insight into tools that Manipur can adapt.
Policy Recommendations for Manipur
Drawing upon the above analysis, the following policy recommendations are proposed to address ethnic slurs and hate speech in Manipur. These measures combine legislative action with educational and administrative initiatives, recog- nizing that sustainable communal harmony requires both strong laws and social norm change:
Enact a State Law Banning Ethnic Slurs in Public Discourse : The Manipur Legislative Assembly, in exercise of its powers to maintain public order, should consider passing a specific law or resolution that explicitly bans the use of known ethnic slurs and pejorative group stereotypes in public speeches, official communication, and media. This law can list particularly egregious terms (for instance, hao, haothu, minai, etc., as well as any other emerging slurs) and prohibit their usage. Offenders could be subject to a fine or short imprisonment. Some people defend the word “Hao” simply meaning “man” as non-derogatory. But what matters here is not the etymology of the word, but its offense as perceived by the listener. Importantly, the law would serve a declarative function–sending a clear message that Manipur will not tolerate hate language. Like how Germany bans Nazi slogans, and Rwanda bans genocide-tainted epithets, Manipur can carve out an exception to free expression in the interest of communal harmony. Even a symbolic ban will empower citizens to call out and report hate speech.
The State may also need to legislate the de-learning of the iconic verse, “Chingna Koina Pansaba, Haona Koina Pan Ngakpa, Manipur Sana Leimayon” extensively used to describe the beauty of Manipur. Contrary to its poetic and patriotic fervor, the words dehumanize the tribes on the hills as mere sentries of the people in the central valley.
Strict Enforcement of Existing Laws (IPC & SC/ST Act) : Alongside a new State law, the Manipur Government must direct the police and prosecutors to vigorously use existing Central laws against hate speech. Section 153A IPC cases should be registered whenever someone makes public statements or posts that promote enmity between Meiteis, Kukis, Nagas, Pangals, or any other community. The State should consider establishing one Special Court for hate speech and atrocity cases, as allowed under the SC/ST Act amendments, to fast-track these trials. Manipur can also request the Central Government to extend or tailor new IPC provisions to cover intra-State ethnic hate more explicitly. In essence, laws on paper must translate to action on the ground.
Guidelines for Political and Community Leaders: The State should formulate a Model Code of Conduct on Communal Harmony for all elected officials, public servants, and community leaders. This code would require that in all public utterances, officials and community representatives avoid derogatory references to any ethnicity, religion, or tribe. Violations of this code (such as an MLA using a slur in a speech) should invite censure – eg, removal from any consultative committees, or even disqua- lification from office if persistent – much as electoral codes punish appeals to religion or caste. Community organizations (Meira Paibis, student unions, Church groups, etc.) can adopt similar internal bylaws committing to non-hate speech. The aim is to hold elite actors accountable, as their language sets the tone for society. If top leaders pointedly refrain from slurs and actively promote respectful language, it will percolate down. Manipur might emulate the approach of countries like South Africa, where Presidents and Ministers routinely publicly denounce racism and slurs, thereby modeling the expected conduct.
Education and Awareness Campaigns: Legisla- tion alone cannot change hearts. A sustained educational campaign is needed to sensitize the public, especially youth, about the hurtful impact of ethnic slurs and the value of diversity. School curricula should include modules on Manipur’s plural heritage, highlighting contributions of each community and warning about the dangers of prejudice. Students could be taught about how terms like Hao evolved to become offensive to certain people. Colleges can host seminars on “language of harmony” and invite victims of hate speech to share their experiences, making abstract concepts tangible.
(To be contd)
Introduction
Manipur is home to a rich tapestry of ethnic communities–including the Meiteis (the dominant valley people), various Kuki- Zo tribes, Naga tribes, Meitei Pangals (Manipuri Muslims), and others. Despite centuries of coexis- tence, relations among these groups have been strained by periodic bouts of ethnic violence and mutual distrust. In recent times, particularly during the unrest of 2023-24, public discourse and social media have seen a proliferation of ethnic slurs and derogatory stereotypes that exacerbate divisions. Words wield great power : what begins with dehumanizing words can end in bloodshed. This is exactly what is happening in Manipur. Ethnic slurs pose a great threat to ethnic harmony in Manipur.
Ethnic Slurs and Social Divisions in Manipur
Every multi-ethnic society develops its share of ethnophaulic derogatory nicknames or slurs for out-groups – and Manipur is no exception. These slurs, often casually bandied in daily conversation, carry painful histories and reinforce social hierarchies. In Manipuri (Meiteilon) lexicon, hill-dwelling tribes (like Kuki and Naga communities) have been pejoratively labeled “hao,” “hao-thu,” “hao-macha,” and “minai” by some from the majority Meitei community.
These terms imply that hill people are “unclean,” “uncivilised,” even akin to slaves – a stark denigration of their equal human dignity. Such language harkens back to old prejudices: hao roughly translates to “uncultured tribesman” in local parlance, and minai has connotations of servitude. Similarly, Meiteis refer to mainland Indians (outsiders) as “Mayang,” a term that has taken on derogatory overtones as “alien” or “other.” In turn, some hill communities have their own derogatory names for valley people; for instance, Thadou-Kuki slang refers to a Meitei as “Milong,” meaning a people who were historically immigrants to the hills (though overt ethnic slurs against Meiteis are less formally documented). The Naga term “Kacha Naga” (literally “raw Naga”) was historically used by others to belittle certain Naga sub-tribes–a reminder that even within broader ethnic categories, pejoratives exist to mark “inferior” subsets. Pangals (Manipuri Muslims) too face a lexicon of abuse. Stereotyped by some Meiteis as troublemakers or criminals, many racist terms are used to describe the Pangal community, reflecting a perception of Pangals as “anti-social” or untrustworthy. Although those specific epithets are often left unwritten in polite media, they persist in street- level jargon and online forums.
These slurs are not harmless banter–they play a pernicious role in reinforcing social divisions.
Each derogatory term creates a mental “us vs. them” boundary.
The normalization of these pejoratives in everyday language cements negative stereotypes: hill communities are painted as uncivilized, while some hill youth see Meiteis as arrogant oppressors. Over time, such rhetoric hardens communal identities and complicates constructive dialogue. What might start as a schoolyard taunt or marketplace insult can evolve into entrenched bias, justifying discriminatory treatment and even violence against the targeted group.
Psychological and Social Fallout
Social science has long established that repeated exposure to hate speech leads to real harm: anxiety, low self-esteem, and inter- generational trauma. Young tribal students in Manipur often internalize slurs about primitiveness or inferiority. Women from hill communities report self- stereotyping and low confidence due to persistent derogatory labelling.
Beyond the individual, slurs damage social cohesion. They normalize discri- mination and lower moral barriers to mistreatment. Manipur’s history has already shown where this can lead—from the 1993 massacre of Meitei Pangals to the recent 2023 clashes where social media amplified hate and rumors on both sides. Platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook became echo chambers of ethnic labelling, turning virtual slurs into real flames.
India’s Legal Framework on Hate Speech
India’s Constitution protects free speech but allows restrictions for public order and decency. Several existing laws can be applied to slurs and hate speech : IPC Section 153A penalizes any speech that promotes enmity between groups based on religion, race, language, or region.
1) Section 505 (2) punishes incitement that could provoke community-on-community violence.
2) Section 295A covers insults aimed at religious sentiments, relevant when ethnic and religious identities overlap (as with Pangals).
Additionally, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act criminalizes insults aimed at Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Many Naga and Kuki tribes fall under this category. In fact, calling someone from the North East a racial slur like “Chinki” can lead to jail under this Act.
Importantly, the Delhi High Court has ruled that even social media posts count as “public view” under the SC/ST Act, opening the door for online hate speech prosecutions.
Under the Information Technology Act, Section 69A allows the Government to block online content that threatens public order—a tool used frequently during Manipur’s internet shutdowns in 2023.
While no Indian law specifically bans “ethnic slurs,” the legal tools exist. What is missing is consistent enforcement and legislation specific to Manipur.
Lessons from Around the World
Around the world, multi-ethnic and pluralistic societies have grappled with how to curb hate speech without unduly infringing free expression. A comparative look at legal approaches –from stringent criminali-zation to softer campus codes–provides valuable lessons for Manipur.
Germany : The Nazis calling Jews as Untermenschen (sub-humans) and vermin led to the Holocaust. In the shadow of the Holocaust, Germany has developed some of the world’s strictest hate speech laws. The German Criminal Code’s Section 130 (Volksverhetzung) makes it a serious offense to incite hatred against any racial, religious, or ethnic group, or even to insult them in a manner that assaults human dignity. Germany crimi-nalizes slurs even on social media.
The result is a public sphere that, by law, is cleansed of open racial/ethnic slurs – contributing to an environment where overt hate is socially taboo.
Rwanda : No country understands the deadly consequences of unchecked hate speech better than Rwanda. The 1994 genocide, which killed an estimated 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu, was preceded and fomented by relentless hate propaganda – Hutus calling Tutsis Inyenzi (meaning cockroaches). In response, post-genocide Rwanda enacted strong laws against “genocide ideology” and sectarian hate speech. Indeed, Rwandan society has seen an extraordinary transformation : words like “Tutsi” or “Hutu” are rarely spoken in public discourse at all now, let alone in a negative sense, due to a top-down imposition of “One Rwanda” identity. Rwandans today have eliminated overt ethnic slurs from public life.
Canada: Even in a country deeply committed to civil liberties, Section 319 (2) of its Criminal Code recognizes that ridiculing or abusing someone on account of their race or origin is harmful enough to warrant criminal sanction. Alongside criminal law, Canada also for many years employed Human Rights Tribunal Codes that treated hate speech (especially in media or online) as a civil rights violation, though a federal provision on internet hate speech was repealed in 2013 due to free speech concerns. Slurs like Negro (for Black people), Red Indian (for North American Natives), Paki (for immigrants of Pakistani origin) and Eskimos (for the Inuits) have been removed from overt use in the society.
South Africa: A country that emerged from institutionalized racism (Apartheid) has uniquely strong social norms and laws against racial slurs. In South Africa, the word “kaffir”–a vile slur used by some whites for Black Africans is criminalised by the Equality Law 2000. The South African approach combines legal punishment with a strong cultural consensus that certain epithets are beyond the pale. The result is that open use of racial slurs is exceedingly rare in mainstream South African society today; transgressors face not only legal action but public censure and loss of employment.
United States : The United States presents a unique case of Constitutionally allowing ethnic slurs and hate speech while struggling to fight the pernicious effects of these in fragmented efforts like University Campus Codes to prohibit derogatory or pejorative remarks aimed at historically disadvantaged groups (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) on campus. The University of Wisconsin produced its Campus Codes in 1980 to be followed by other universities afterwards. The slur Kike used against the Jewish people is observably forbidden.
In summary, international models range from criminalizing hate speech (Germany, Rwanda, South Africa), to mixed civil-criminal approaches (Canada), to institutional policies within a free-speech framework (US campuses). A thread common to all is the understanding that hate speech–especially ethnic slurs – is not a trivial matter of hurt feelings but a substantive social harm that can unravel the fabric of a multiethnic society. The choices made reflect different balances of values, but each offers insight into tools that Manipur can adapt.
Policy Recommendations for Manipur
Drawing upon the above analysis, the following policy recommendations are proposed to address ethnic slurs and hate speech in Manipur. These measures combine legislative action with educational and administrative initiatives, recog- nizing that sustainable communal harmony requires both strong laws and social norm change:
Enact a State Law Banning Ethnic Slurs in Public Discourse : The Manipur Legislative Assembly, in exercise of its powers to maintain public order, should consider passing a specific law or resolution that explicitly bans the use of known ethnic slurs and pejorative group stereotypes in public speeches, official communication, and media. This law can list particularly egregious terms (for instance, hao, haothu, minai, etc., as well as any other emerging slurs) and prohibit their usage. Offenders could be subject to a fine or short imprisonment. Some people defend the word “Hao” simply meaning “man” as non-derogatory. But what matters here is not the etymology of the word, but its offense as perceived by the listener. Importantly, the law would serve a declarative function–sending a clear message that Manipur will not tolerate hate language. Like how Germany bans Nazi slogans, and Rwanda bans genocide-tainted epithets, Manipur can carve out an exception to free expression in the interest of communal harmony. Even a symbolic ban will empower citizens to call out and report hate speech.
The State may also need to legislate the de-learning of the iconic verse, “Chingna Koina Pansaba, Haona Koina Pan Ngakpa, Manipur Sana Leimayon” extensively used to describe the beauty of Manipur. Contrary to its poetic and patriotic fervor, the words dehumanize the tribes on the hills as mere sentries of the people in the central valley.
Strict Enforcement of Existing Laws (IPC & SC/ST Act) : Alongside a new State law, the Manipur Government must direct the police and prosecutors to vigorously use existing Central laws against hate speech. Section 153A IPC cases should be registered whenever someone makes public statements or posts that promote enmity between Meiteis, Kukis, Nagas, Pangals, or any other community. The State should consider establishing one Special Court for hate speech and atrocity cases, as allowed under the SC/ST Act amendments, to fast-track these trials. Manipur can also request the Central Government to extend or tailor new IPC provisions to cover intra-State ethnic hate more explicitly. In essence, laws on paper must translate to action on the ground.
Guidelines for Political and Community Leaders: The State should formulate a Model Code of Conduct on Communal Harmony for all elected officials, public servants, and community leaders. This code would require that in all public utterances, officials and community representatives avoid derogatory references to any ethnicity, religion, or tribe. Violations of this code (such as an MLA using a slur in a speech) should invite censure – eg, removal from any consultative committees, or even disqua- lification from office if persistent – much as electoral codes punish appeals to religion or caste. Community organizations (Meira Paibis, student unions, Church groups, etc.) can adopt similar internal bylaws committing to non-hate speech. The aim is to hold elite actors accountable, as their language sets the tone for society. If top leaders pointedly refrain from slurs and actively promote respectful language, it will percolate down. Manipur might emulate the approach of countries like South Africa, where Presidents and Ministers routinely publicly denounce racism and slurs, thereby modeling the expected conduct.
Education and Awareness Campaigns: Legisla- tion alone cannot change hearts. A sustained educational campaign is needed to sensitize the public, especially youth, about the hurtful impact of ethnic slurs and the value of diversity. School curricula should include modules on Manipur’s plural heritage, highlighting contributions of each community and warning about the dangers of prejudice. Students could be taught about how terms like Hao evolved to become offensive to certain people. Colleges can host seminars on “language of harmony” and invite victims of hate speech to share their experiences, making abstract concepts tangible.
(To be contd)